Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output behavior: counts of readable files by type and label, gated counts, and inherited labels. It doesn't explicitly state the tool is read-only, but 'lists' implies non-mutating. The inherited-label nuance adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each earning its place. The first front-loads purpose and usage, the second details output shape, and the third explains label inheritance. No redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavior well. It explains what the return value will include (folders, counts, gating). A minor gap is not explicitly mentioning the token parameter, but the schema fully handles that, and the tool is straightforward.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description references 'Pass a folder' which maps to parent/location, but it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already documents. The schema descriptions for parent and location are self-explanatory.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'lists the folders you can reach and what is in them.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_org_docs (documents) and list_org_sources (sources) by focusing on folders. The purpose is unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells when to use it: 'worth making once at the start of any session about this organization.' It also explains when to pass a folder ('Pass a folder to see its shape'). It doesn't name alternative tools, but the orientation context strongly implies the appropriate use case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.